University of Michigan economics professor Justin Wolfers has been publishing reports for years claiming that reliable data indicates the U.S. divorce rate peaked in 1979, and has been in significant decline since. In fact, Professor Wolfers concludes based on current statistical trends, approximately 2/3 of all currently married couples will never experience divorce.

That is a weighty claim. If accurate, then why does the urban legend persist that over half of all marriages will end in divorce?

Relevant to this analysis is the fact that fewer young people are deciding to get married, those who do are waiting longer to tie-the-knot and, at least according to Professor Wolfers, on average, marriages are stronger and more stable today than 30-years ago.

The traditional bread-winner model [husband works outside the home; wife works inside the home] of the 1950s and 60s broke down, causing temporary upheaval reflected in the spiked divorce rate. Now, there is the so-called "love marriage" where couples, imagine this, actually love each other and get married solely for this reason, not for economics.

Of course, the factors involved in this calculus are sociological and thus, the subject of much debate. Academic researchers note that, significantly, two-thirds of all divorces are filed by women. The rise of feminism in the 1970s is offered as one chief plausible explanation for the so-called "spike" in the divorce rate of the 1970s and 1980s.

Professor Wolfers also has his statistical critics who claim that, given enough time, the divorce rate for those couples married in the 1990s and 2000s will "catch-up" with the 50% benchmark. These critics point to the fact that people married in the late 1990s and 2000 are not yet "empty nesters"; a common jumping-off point for weak marriages.

We here at the Law Blogger also wonder how the millennials, with their 30-second attention spans, will handle the challenges of long-term marriage. Rather than spike a divorce rate, the millennials may contribute to a sharp decline in the rate of marriage; electing just to stay single and connected to their own electronic private Idahos.

Federal funding allocated to the collection of data from the 44 states that maintain divorce statistics was eliminated in 1996, so national trends are more difficult to statistically verify unless the university gets involved; they are, to be sure. Nevertheless, states that collect divorce data do so reliably.

Here in Michigan, for example, when we complete a divorce proceeding, a Record of Divorce is required to be filed with the county clerk at the time the judgment of divorce is filed. The clerk then forwards the record of divorce to Lansing.

Let's hope that Professor Wolfers is correct that modern marriages are longer-lasting because they are stronger and forged out of love. There will always be a failure rate when two people tie-the-knot.

Divorce does not carry the same stigma that it did 30-years ago. If you are facing these tough decisions, a qualified divorce lawyer can ease the pain; our law firm offers free consultations to discuss your options.

www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@clarkstonlegal.com

We here at the Law Blogger are truly amazed at how often the New York Times carries above-the-fold front page stories that involve families from our neck of the woods.  The latest example is a story in last Sunday's NYT that proposed an entirely new social classification, not based on race or gender, but on one's marital status.

The premise of the article is that a correlation exists between one's net worth and one's marital status, particularly among women; married two-parent households tend to do better economically than single parent households.

Beyond just stating the obvious, the article profiled two local families: a married couple located in Livingston County, and a single mother living in Ann Arbor.  The NYT cited to statistics suggesting a rapid growth in single-parent households.

What struck us as relevant in the article is the nearly explosive growth of single-parent households.  Once reserved for the "bottom quadrant" of the lower class, single-parent households have experienced the most growth in the second quadrant, among the so-called "working class".

Jason DeParl's article detailed the child rearing advantages of a two-parent household, not just from the standpoint of two incomes, but also from a time and availability perspective.  DeParl sites to statistics that show the long range benefits gained by children raised in a two parent household.  These include better average education and higher self esteem.

By the end of the article, I felt truly sorry for the children of the single mother in Ann Arbor.  That mom struggled to make ends meet and to provide basic extra curricular opportunities for her children.  The married Livingston County couple, on the other hand, used their dual incomes to provide their children with a host of enriching activities in which both parents participated.

The trend cited in the article is that the wealthier among us are more inclined to embark upon building a family under traditional means: marriage, with both parents contributing to the economic and social development of the children.  For the less wealthy among us, single-parenthood looms as a growing specter, with the promise of begetting more single-parent households, as the children born into these arrangements tend to eschew traditional marriage, and embrace the same living arrangement as the parent who raised them.

The article draws no conclusions about our ever-present high rate of divorce and is silent as to how divorce affects the long-term health of family members, particularly children.  We here at the Law Blogger believe divorce is perhaps the most significant factor in one's marital status.

As a caveat to this thesis, Mr. DeParl does point out, however, that 2 of our last 3 presidents came from single-parent households.

Go figure.

www.clarkstonlegal.com

info@clarkstonlegal.com